Cynthia Conrad & Charles Coleman University of New Haven

Transcription

1 Cynthia Conrad & Charles Coleman University of New Haven

2 In 2007, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) responded to 58 Major Disaster Declarations, 10 Emergency Declarations, and 60 Fire Management Assistance Declarations, including tornadoes in Florida and Kansas, floods in the Midwest, Tropical Storm Erin and the California Wildfires. State and local first responders dealt with other major events, including the Virginia Tech shootings in Blacksburg, VA, the Chevron Refinery Fire in Pascagoula, MS, the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, MN, and the Florida and California Wildfires. It was an average year.

3 By definition, it is an event which overwhelms the local resources to respond. In most cases, the first responders to a natural or man-made disaster are the local law enforcement personnel, including police, fire, emergency medical response. They must assess the situation, set up command and control systems, and begin the response.

4 Disaster planning is always a delicate balance between the probability of something happening vs. not happening. Public service agencies must spend public funds prudently. So, planning for disasters may mean not addressing all possibilities. The level of vulnerability in a community may be directly tied to the fiscal pressures faced by the first responders.

5 The 911 Attacks and Hurricane Katrina were vivid cases of local public safety departments facing huge, devastating disasters and being overwhelmed. The sad results were the consequence. In such cases, are we too reliant on first responders to address a large scale disaster? Are we being too passive in our preparation for disasters in private or public organizations or even in our personal lives?

6 This was our research question. We surveyed all the police departments in Connecticut by mail to ask them questions about their size, assets, experience with disasters, which disasters they anticipate seeing again, and how prepared they are to meet them. Our findings follow.

7 Mean Minimum Maximum Standard Dev Population Number of Officers Cars in Dept SUV s in Dept Trucks in Dept Boats in Dept Other Vehicles

8 Number Percentage Urban Suburban Rural Inland Costal

9 Asked if there had been a major disaster in their community in the last ten years, 17 (22.4%) said yes and 59 (77.6%) sad no. This shows that more than three quarters of these departments have not experienced a recent disaster. Of those responding positively, six said their disaster had occurred in 2005; all other years showed one or two responses. Asked about the type of disaster, 1 said blizzard, 4 said flood, 2 said ice storm, 1 said major fire, 1 said hostage incident. So most disaster experiences in Connecticut in the last ten years were natural disasters. Four of the respondents said there had been a loss of life in their disasters,. Each time they indicated it was only one person. The mean property damage of the disasters over the last ten years was $717,500.

10 Mean Rank St Dev

11 Rank St Dev

12 Mean Rank St. Dev

13 % Yes % NO

14

15 Regression Analysis (R squares) Indexes Pop Officers Drill Major Disaster Natural Potential Natural Preparation NS NS NS NS NS Natural Potential NS NS NS Manmade Potential Manmade Preparation NS NS Manmade Potential NS

16 In general, the respondents felt that they were at low risk for natural disasters, and even lower risk for man-made disasters. They also indicated that they were well prepared for natural and moderately prepared for manmade disasters. INDEXES Mean Std. Deviation mean rank naturalpotential low manmadepot very low naturalprep well prepared manmadeprep moderate prep

17 Looking at the perceived potential affecting preparation, we see that the man-made disasters seem to have much higher correlations, as if they are more easily mitigated. Population size seems to have a correlation with the perceptions of risk for man-made disasters as well as preparation, but no effect on concerns or preparation for natural disasters. Having had a major disaster in the last ten years correlated only with the potential for a natural disaster, probably because natural disasters were most often mentioned.

18 Oddly, the indexed variable for natural disaster potential did not correlate with the indexed variable for natural disaster preparation. However, the indexed variable for potential for man-made disasters correlated with the indexed variable for man-made disaster preparation at a moderate level of strength (R square.424). Clearly the respondents feel that there is a need to be ready for a man-made disaster, however they are less concerned about natural disasters.

19 Evidently, the respondents feel they are adequately prepared. A large majority have an incident command plan. However, almost half of the departments had not held a disaster drill in the last five years. Interestingly, the respondents indicate a greater faith in ancillary help from Non-Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross or Salvation Army, than in the Department of Homeland Security.

20 Future research should look into why there is such a difference in the perceptions and preparations for natural vs. man-made disasters. Is this situation creating any potential dangers? We should also consider the impacts of the lack of faith in the Department of Homeland Security and its implications for departmental preparedness. Are these findings unique to Connecticut or will we find similar conditions in other states? All are potential research questions.